iPhone prototype: web reacts to raid on editor's house

On Friday night, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Gizmodo senior editor Jason Chen's residence with a warrant, seizing four computers, two servers, and a number of other incidentals (including flash drives, cameras, and phones).

Gizmodo went ahead and posted everything--including a copy of the warrant, an inventory of the seized items, Gizmodo's legal response to the police, and Chen's account of the events--to its website on Monday, presumably to bring the Internet over to its side (after all, the Web hates law enforcement).

Part of Gizmodo's legal response to the police quotes section 1524 (g) of the California Penal Code, which states, "no warrant shall issue for any item or items described Section 1070 of the Evidence code."

"(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

(c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated."

But if Gizmodo is looking to play the "integrity" card (complete with arguments that "it's the public's right to know" and "the press is the watchdog of big corporations such as Apple"), they may have screwed themselves over with their actions.

The Web appears to be unsympathetic toward Chen and Gizmodo, not only because of the sketchy legality surrounding their acquisition of the iPhone prototype, but because of how Gizmodo outed the engineer who lost the prototype. A commenter over at Digg, OneManArmy, says, "They had it coming. After publicly humiliating that Apple engineer that lost the phone, posting his name and facebook photo for millions to see I have no sympathy for them."

Gizmodo disabled comments over at its post on the search and seizure of Chen's residence, but the related Digg post had about 800 comments as of Monday night. Digg users seem to think that, at best, Gizmodo should have seen this coming.

Digg commenter hitman619 says, in response to California Evidence Code Section 1070, "This is a great link. Very wordy but everyone here needs to read this before passing judgement on Chen. This is California we have state laws and there is that whole freedom of the press thing granted by the constitution."

Of course, many commenters don't think that Section 1070 really applies to Chen and Gizmodo--commenter ARTLUKM states, "The property wasn't seized as a result of any work of journalism. It was seized due to corporate espionage and acquisition of stolen property," while commenter elpayo says, "Gawker's COO is attempting to make the case that seizing Chen's computers was in violation of the penal code because he's a journalist protecting a source. But the cops seized the computers because Chen received stolen property. If Gawker hadn't paid $5000 for the prototype, they might have a case. But they did, so they don't."

Over at CNN, the tone is a bit different--commenters appear to be more interested in discussing whether or not Apple has gone too far--or if Apple is even to blame for the police's "Gestapo" tactics.

CNN commenter Hugh Jole notes that, "Apple shouldn't be bashed or trash talked here. If anyone spent millions of dollars developing a product and then had it displayed and dissected on an international stage for everyone and their mothers to see before they had a chance to make back any of those dollars, they would be ripping mad too and want the person who did it to be brought to justice."

Another commenter at CNN, Dorkus Maximus, suggests that perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to believe Gizmodo's side over Apple's: "A lot of people here already seem to believe the Gizmodo story--the phone lost at a bar, the finder trying to return it to a disbelieving company. But that's Gizmodo's story. The police apparently found evidence to suggest that story doesn't wash. Judges don't give out warrants without probable cause. Gizmodo is trying to hide behind the cause of journalism, but let the facts speak for themselves."

It seems that nobody's really sure who's at fault--Apple, Gizmodo, Chen, the police, the District Attorney, the guy who sold the iPhone, the guy who lost the iPhone, Nick Denton, the drunk guy who pointed out the lost iPhone, etc.--and the web's reaction shows this.

So, what do you think? Did Apple/the police go too far in raiding Jason Chen's home, or should Gizmodo have seen this one coming?

Email this to a friend

Trending Stories

Comments

Jaded said: Comments,Jaded,They could even put a camera on the front to take a photo of the thief.

Mac Wizard said: Comments,Mac Wizard,If only Apple had a way of tracking the phone once they knew it was lost. Something like a subscription service, you register your phone then you can see it on Google Maps, maybe send a message saying "Please give it back".Oh, they do.

Mark Hattersley said: Comments,Mark Hattersley,Well there are two thoughts here:1. It&amp;apos;s widely known that Apple sits on the guiding committee of the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team that instigated the raid.According to its web sitewww.reacttf.org/10701.html.... That aside. The raid didn&amp;apos;t come out of nowhere. It almost certainly came from a crime being reported - most probably from Apple itself. Maybe they just reacted to reports on the web, but it&amp;apos;s hardly nuts to think Apple had some involvement (even if it was simply a phone call to report a crime).

greendave said: Comments,greendave,"Did Apple/the police go too far in raiding Jason Chen&amp;apos;s home"What? You imply Apple have some input into how the police handle their criminal investigations..... Are you nuts? or just deliberately trying to put Apple down - great work MacWorld!

atlunch said: Comments,atlunch,If you find something(not yours) in a bar and remove it from the premises - it&amp;apos;s theft. You KNOW it&amp;apos;s not yours, you KNOW it most likely belongs to someone in the bar and that they will want it back. Solution - hand it over to the bar staff.If you then sell it, you benefit from the theft and are guilty of several crimes(removal, handling and profit).In selling the object, you are guilty of a further crime if you do not voluntarily explain how you came by it to the person who buys it. The buyer is guilty of handling stolen property if they do not exercise due diligence in determining it&amp;apos;s provenance ie legal ownership. Since Gizmodo would have known within a couple of seconds that it was an iPhone and that it was a non-standard/prototype they are complicit in the initial theft if they then offer money for the phone - which they did.